Hollywood Reporter's "Marvel's universal approach a world apart from DC" article

[TMC1982]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/columns/f ilm_reporter/e3i7e5a336a9153b9a5c0068b54a6876a08

The shared universe was one of the hallmarks of the Marvel universe. Dominant DC suddenly was squaresville, while Marvel was what the cool college kids kept in their dorms, and Marvel overtook DC as the No. 1 comics publisher.

Now, going on five decades later, Marvel is at it again.

At the end of the credits of the current blockbuster "Iron Man," there is a coda with Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, the head of a secret organization, SHIELD, inviting Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark to be part of the Avenger Initiative. Sit past the credits with a group of geeks and you'll hear gleeful titters of recognition.

Next, Stark will pop up in June in Universal's release of "The Incredible Hulk." Marvel more than hinted that Hulk, Fury and others will surface in the 2010 and 2011 releases of "Iron Man 2," "Thor" and "Captain America," leading up to "The Avengers," which will team all these heroes -- and hopefully the respective actors first creating them onscreen -- in one movie.

"We are ... able to have characters pop up in each other's movies and make those movies more interesting and get visibility and promote our future films," Marvel Studios chairman David Maisel says.

That's something that Warners and DC have yet to master.

Warner Bros. now a days seems to "place all of their chips" (so to speak) Batman. I mean, Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" underhelmed and had fans split and now, the sequel to that is still up in the air. Plus, the Wonder Woman movie with Joel Silver and Josh Whedon is back in development hell. They also wanted to make a Green Lantern movie into a comedy with Jack Black. The also intended to make a Justice League movie without Brandon Routh or Christian Bale (Superman and Batman respectively) in the picture, and now that is also back in development hell.

I think that Warner Bros. doesn't feel like they're in such a hurry (or carry much desire to compete with Marvel) since they own the characters themselves. Which is ironic because it makes movie crossovers much easier than with in Marvel's past films.

[Acecool]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/columns/f ilm_reporter/e3i7e5a336a9153b9a5c0068b54a6876a08



Warner Bros. now a days seems to "place all of their chips" (so to speak) Batman. I mean, Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" underhelmed and had fans split and now, the sequel to that is still up in the air. Plus, the Wonder Woman movie with Joel Silver and Josh Whedon is back in development hell. They also wanted to make a Green Lantern movie into a comedy with Jack Black. The also intended to make a Justice League movie without Brandon Routh or Christian Bale (Superman and Batman respectively) in the picture, and now that is also back in development hell.

I think that Warner Bros. doesn't feel like they're in such a hurry (or carry much desire to compete with Marvel) since they own the characters themselves. Which is ironic because it makes movie crossovers much easier than with in Marvel's past films.

Actually, Ironman and the like are movies that are being backed by Marvel which is why one universe for these are viable. I doubt we'd see spider-man cross over with Hulk because Spider-man has been licensed out. Hulk, Ironman, Thor and Cap are all under the Marvel Movies brand.

[stealthwise]

Why in the hell would we want to see The Flash (for example) play second-fiddle to other heroes when he could headline his own set of movies?

And with the disparate approaches to Superman Returns and Batman Begins, how the hell would you be able to create a workable film?

[Jmacq1]

Uhm, if Warner Brothers were to emulate Marvel Studios, Flash would headline his own movie(s), and Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman. It's just that they'd all also show up in a "Justice League" movie after/in the midst of their solo efforts.

But that's not really the point. The point is that Marvel, particularly now that they have more creative control over the films, "gets it" when it comes to ideas like this. They've got the comic-savvy people/comic creators actively involved in the creative processes of these films.

Meanwhile, the execs at Warner Brothers' film division are so many layers removed from DC comics folks in the corporate hierarchy that I strongly suspect few, if any, have ever read a comic book in their life, or know anything beyond the bare basics of what the characters are about. Read up on the multiple outlandish versions of Superman that were in development hell before Superman Returns finally got made for a good look at just how clueless many Warner Brothers producers and executives are (Hint: Basically most of the ideas amounted to: Keep the names, but change everything else).

That having been said, I have a feeling Warner's going to "wait out" this experiment by Marvel, and see how the Avengers comes together and how successful it is. Then the question will be if Warner Brothers will try to emulate that success, or if they'll go with the "well someone else already did it so we don't want to copy it" mentality and just continue on the bass-ackwards track they've been on for any characters that aren't Batman or Superman.

Plus, the "superhero movie bubble" may well burst before too much longer, though it's already showed surprising longevity for a Hollywood "trend." But I'm curious to see how Avengers develops particularly if one (or more) of the solo lead-in efforts underperforms. Not that I'm predicting it'll happen, but heck, pretty much everyone already speculates that the "Captain America" film has a serious uphill battle to fight.

[KenK]

Uhm, if Warner Brothers were to emulate Marvel Studios, Flash would headline his own movie(s), and Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman. It's just that they'd all also show up in a "Justice League" movie after/in the midst of their solo efforts.

But that's not really the point. The point is that Marvel, particularly now that they have more creative control over the films, "gets it" when it comes to ideas like this. They've got the comic-savvy people/comic creators actively involved in the creative processes of these films.

Meanwhile, the execs at Warner Brothers' film division are so many layers removed from DC comics folks in the corporate hierarchy that I strongly suspect few, if any, have ever read a comic book in their life, or know anything beyond the bare basics of what the characters are about. Read up on the multiple outlandish versions of Superman that were in development hell before Superman Returns finally got made for a good look at just how clueless many Warner Brothers producers and executives are (Hint: Basically most of the ideas amounted to: Keep the names, but change everything else).

That having been said, I have a feeling Warner's going to "wait out" this experiment by Marvel, and see how the Avengers comes together and how successful it is. Then the question will be if Warner Brothers will try to emulate that success, or if they'll go with the "well someone else already did it so we don't want to copy it" mentality and just continue on the bass-ackwards track they've been on for any characters that aren't Batman or Superman.

Plus, the "superhero movie bubble" may well burst before too much longer, though it's already showed surprising longevity for a Hollywood "trend." But I'm curious to see how Avengers develops particularly if one (or more) of the solo lead-in efforts underperforms. Not that I'm predicting it'll happen, but heck, pretty much everyone already speculates that the "Captain America" film has a serious uphill battle to fight.

I've honestly never understood this idea of talking about superhero movies as if it's a relatively recent fad. There's certainly a point where superhero films started to feel somewhat more epic (arguably this began with Superman: The Movie), but comic books being translated to film has been a fairly regular part of motion pictures since its inception. I'd say at this point, comic book movies will continue to be as prevelant as movies based on say, novels. Especially with the comic book industry flooding the market with comics with the sole purpose of getting the concept made into a film in the first place. Half of these comics never even come out!

[Jmacq1]

I've honestly never understood this idea of talking about superhero movies as if it's a relatively recent fad. There's certainly a point where superhero films started to feel somewhat more epic (arguably this began with Superman: The Movie), but comic books being translated to film has been a fairly regular part of motion pictures since its inception. I'd say at this point, comic book movies will continue to be as prevelant as movies based on say, novels. Especially with the comic book industry flooding the market with comics with the sole purpose of getting the concept made into a film in the first place. Half of these comics never even come out!

The act of making superhero movies isn't particularly new, no, but it's only been since roughly the first X-Men and Spider-Man films (or arguably Blade) that one could expect 1-5 "superhero" movies coming out every single year, with at least one or two (or more) of them expected to be the big "tentpole" films for that summer movie season.

Even in the days of Reeve-Superman and Keaton-Batman, "Superhero movies" were pretty rare on the big screen, and usually a "once every couple of years" kind of deal. And of course, there were the "straight to video" efforts or "never got distributed" efforts that most of the early attempts at Marvel films entailed (Corman FF, Captain America, Dolph-Punisher....).

Basically, while I agree that Superhero films won't go away completely, I attest that just like alien invasion films in the '50's or Westerns (or even Musicals) before that, they'll eventually stop being the most popular form of movie on the big-screen, and will fade back into more "occasional" efforts rather than the constant barrage we've gotten for the last several years.

[xnef1025]

I've honestly never understood this idea of talking about superhero movies as if it's a relatively recent fad. There's certainly a point where superhero films started to feel somewhat more epic (arguably this began with Superman: The Movie), but comic books being translated to film has been a fairly regular part of motion pictures since its inception. I'd say at this point, comic book movies will continue to be as prevelant as movies based on say, novels. Especially with the comic book industry flooding the market with comics with the sole purpose of getting the concept made into a film in the first place. Half of these comics never even come out!
Exactly. Superhero movies aren't just some trend. They've been a valid genre in theaters going back to old serials. The only thing that ever stopped them from being made was lack of technology to pull it off in a polished way. Audiences will suspend disbelief for just about anything as long as it doesn't look cheap.

[Mike Pothier]

Honestly, I couldn't care less about keeping all the movies in the same universe. Unlike comics, movies have a definitive beginning and end, and I want the creators to care more about making a good movie then finding the time to pack in as many references to other superheros as they can.

[Jmacq1]

Honestly, I couldn't care less about keeping all the movies in the same universe. Unlike comics, movies have a definitive beginning and end, and I want the creators to care more about making a good movie then finding the time to pack in as many references to other superheros as they can.

Did you see Iron Man? The quality of the film was in no way hurt by the "nods" (what very few there were).

Marvel doesn't appear to be talking about "packing in as many references to other superheroes as they can." Just by throwing in little "nods" that make it clear it's all happening in the same world.

Besides, who says you can't make a good movie that has those references? The films still work perfectly well as independent works (note the only overt reference to a shared universe is an after-credits "stinger" in the case of Iron Man), but the shared-setting references give the entire setting a greater breadth. I think it's a great experiment, and to be honest I'm not sure anything like it has really been done/attempted before. I'll be very interested to see how it turns out.

[Mike Pothier]

Yes, I saw Iron Man. I loved the movie, and my love for the movie was entirely based on how well it was made, not what references there were to other heroes.

Look, I'm not saying referencing other comic characters or setting is a necessarily bad thing. If Metropolis is mentioned in The Dark Knight, the fanboy in me will be giddy.

What I'm saying is that making a comic-based movie with the intention of loading it with links to other comic-based movies in order to build a cohesive comic-based movie universe isn't necessarily a good thing. As long as they focus on making the movie good, I really don't care what links it has to other marvel/dc movies.

[StoneGold]

Look, I'm not saying referencing other comic characters or setting is a necessarily bad thing. If Metropolis is mentioned in The Dark Knight, the fanboy in me will be giddy.


"This is why Superman works alone!"

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/spotlights/news/batmanrobin.jpg

[GRANT!]

I wouldn't jump the gun on the Avengers movie. All it takes are one or two high profile misfires to prevent that movie from happening. Hulk is looking like it's not going to do well, Thor is a very hard sell and the Cap movie is scheduled three months before the Avengers is going to come out.

Not to mention the challenge of making all of these characters work together in one movie together as well as their own movies.

I want to happen as much as anyone here but there's still a lot of things standing in the way.

[StoneGold]

Hulk is looking like it's not going to do wellAccording to who? Thor is a very hard sell Right, because the international audience doesn't get fantasy movies these days...


I'm not saying there aren't obstacles to making an Avengers film. But I'm not sure those two are them.

[GRANT!]

According to who?

There's been plenty of articles about the bad buzz this movie is getting. New York Times had the big one about Norton's issues with the film. And not to mention the digs it gets in many of those summer preview articles.

Personally I think that's all overblown and the movie doesn't look all that bad. But the press has been making similar comments about Speed Racer and that movie didn't do so hot (even though I thought it was kind of fun).

Right, because the international audience doesn't get fantasy movies these days...

They haven't been doing so hot lately yeah there's been Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Narnia. But there's plenty of Eragons and Golden Compasses as well. Fantasy is still a hard sell. Mixing it with a superhero movie and apparently a modern superhero movie is going to be tricky.

I'm not saying there aren't obstacles to making an Avengers film. But I'm not sure those two are them.

Two new franchises in a small slate of films is a pretty big deal.

[Jmacq1]

They haven't been doing so hot lately yeah there's been Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Narnia. But there's plenty of Eragons and Golden Compasses as well. Fantasy is still a hard sell. Mixing it with a superhero movie and apparently a modern superhero movie is going to be tricky.

He said international audiences. Both Eragon and Golden Compass did over 100 million dollars more business overseas than in the United States. I think he's basically saying that Thor has a good chance of making up any lack of domestic sales with international take.

Two new franchises in a small slate of films is a pretty big deal.

The movies are on the docket and very likely to get greenlit and produced, in fact at this point Thor and Iron-Man 2 are going to pretty much have to start rolling on the preproduction and ramping-up to make a summer 2010 debut.

Are you suggesting Marvel should just stop trying to make new movies or new franchises? Bear in mind they only have one movie so far. Everything they make besides "Iron Man 2" is going to be an attempt at a new franchise no matter how you slice it.

Even if one (or even more) of these new characters don't do as well as hoped for, that doesn't mean Avengers is going to suffer for it. Of course, there's no guarantee that Avengers will be a success, either, but if Iron Man is any indication, Marvel Studios is most certainly on the right track, and committed to producing quality fare. Beyond that, the benefit of building towards Avengers within the other films is obvious: It saves the filmmakers from having to recap everyone's origin stories in the "team" film, which lets it focus more on the real story and further character developments.

PS: Very little of the "buzz" on the new Hulk film has anything to do with the quality of the film itself.

[Mike Pothier]

"This is why Superman works alone!"

My inner fanboy would have been giddy had it not crawled into fetal position and wept at that point.

[GRANT!]

He said international audiences. Both Eragon and Golden Compass did over 100 million dollars more business overseas than in the United States. I think he's basically saying that Thor has a good chance of making up any lack of domestic sales with international take.

I'll give you Golden Compass but I don't think Eragon did so hot outside of the US.

The movies are on the docket and very likely to get greenlit and produced, in fact at this point Thor and Iron-Man 2 are going to pretty much have to start rolling on the preproduction and ramping-up to make a summer 2010 debut.

Are you suggesting Marvel should just stop trying to make new movies or new franchises? Bear in mind they only have one movie so far. Everything they make besides "Iron Man 2" is going to be an attempt at a new franchise no matter how you slice it.

I know they are making Thor and Iron Man 2 for sure. But I'm just saying Thor is going to be a hard sell. I'm not saying it will bomb for sure. But so far they don't have a director (Vaughn is apparently no longer attached) and no star. I heard the script is good. But that script is also being rewritten. Right now Thor is just a release date.

Even if one (or even more) of these new characters don't do as well as hoped for, that doesn't mean Avengers is going to suffer for it. Of course, there's no guarantee that Avengers will be a success, either, but if Iron Man is any indication, Marvel Studios is most certainly on the right track, and committed to producing quality fare. Beyond that, the benefit of building towards Avengers within the other films is obvious: It saves the filmmakers from having to recap everyone's origin stories in the "team" film, which lets it focus more on the real story and further character developments.

I think if Iron Man is the only successful character out of the three characters (unfortunatley can't count Cap because his movie will be coming out within months as The Avengers) it's going to be a struggle to convince people to see a movie featuring Iron Man and three character that they don't care about.

PS: Very little of the "buzz" on the new Hulk film has anything to do with the quality of the film itself.

I'm not arguing that. I liked Speed Racer but that movie had a ton of bad buzz. People really did not want to see that movie. And they didn't. I feel like the same thing is happening with the Hulk.

And for the record I think the new Hulk looks pretty fun. But I'm not going to deny there's a lot of disinterest going around the movie especially in a crowded summer like this one. Not to mention some people still think it's a sequel of a movie (despite it's vocal support by some) is considered a dud. Personally I want it to pull through and do all right but it's going to have some trouble.

Don't get me wrong .I do think it's cool Marvel is attempting this. But I do think it's going to be challenge to make it work. I would like nothing more then a really cool Avengers movie.

[ultramandingo]

"This is why Superman works alone!"



http://widget.slide.com/rdr/1/1/3/W/1700000009735b24/1/201/rMyqADIayj8XH9y3cDyoOE8njW5RNukq.jpg (http://www.slide.com/s/mAA62plZvz9J7Em9j85MxEGjfI77z9HT?referrer=hlnk)

[Acecool]

He said international audiences. Both Eragon and Golden Compass did over 100 million dollars more business overseas than in the United States. I think he's basically saying that Thor has a good chance of making up any lack of domestic sales with international take.



The movies are on the docket and very likely to get greenlit and produced, in fact at this point Thor and Iron-Man 2 are going to pretty much have to start rolling on the preproduction and ramping-up to make a summer 2010 debut.

Are you suggesting Marvel should just stop trying to make new movies or new franchises? Bear in mind they only have one movie so far. Everything they make besides "Iron Man 2" is going to be an attempt at a new franchise no matter how you slice it.

Even if one (or even more) of these new characters don't do as well as hoped for, that doesn't mean Avengers is going to suffer for it. Of course, there's no guarantee that Avengers will be a success, either, but if Iron Man is any indication, Marvel Studios is most certainly on the right track, and committed to producing quality fare. Beyond that, the benefit of building towards Avengers within the other films is obvious: It saves the filmmakers from having to recap everyone's origin stories in the "team" film, which lets it focus more on the real story and further character developments.

PS: Very little of the "buzz" on the new Hulk film has anything to do with the quality of the film itself.


Besides which, if say a large chunk of audiences really like Ironman, and a decent chunk like thor, hulk and Captain America, they are going to love seeing those characters interact in an avengers movie.

Say persons A, B, C, goes to see Avengers because of Ironman. Persons, C and D might go see it because of Hulk and so forth. Thus avengers attracts a larger audience.

This is partially why people regularly buy Pay Per View wrestling, to see interaction among the different brands. This is particularly true with the recent Merryweather/Big Show fight. The cross over between Wrestling and Boxing.

This is Synergy. Each is feeding off the other so that the sum is greater than the parts.

[stealthwise]

FYI: Eragon - $75 million domestic
$174,400,000 worldwide

Total: $249,400,000